I'm not sure RSIP is the right protocol, but I'm personally of the opinion that any kind of standard xyNAT (for any x or y) needs to have a well-defined, standard, signaling/control protocol. And it needs to be (pretty much) the same protocol for all x and y.
I'll take another look at RSIP's suitability for this in the next few days. Keith > everyone-- > > Would the authors of the NAT66 draft consider adding a requirement for > NAT66 gateways to comprise the combination of the translator function > with the IPv6-relevant functions of Realm-specific IP servers for > symmetric NAT, c.f. RFCs 3102 and 3103? (I don't see an immediate need > to worry about the functions defined in RFC 3104 as long as address > amplification can remain off the table as a goal for any IPv6/NAT > standard.) > > I think requiring RSIP servers in the NAT66 gateway would address Dave > Thaler's argument about Source Address Finding (SAF) as presented in > draft-thaler-ipv6-saf, and I'm inviting the authors to respond with > comments. I'd be a lot less wiggy about NAT66 if it looked like RSIP > (or its moral equivalent) might finally see the light of day. > > > -- > james woodyatt <[email protected]> > member of technical staff, communications engineering > > > _______________________________________________ > nat66 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
